MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319755519 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30020165

The Landscape of Immunotherapy for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma

2023· review· en· W4319755519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alicia A. Gingrich, Elise F. Nassif, Christina L. Roland, Emily Z. Keung

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunotherapySarcomaOncologyTumor microenvironmentSoft tissue sarcomaImmune systemInternal medicinePathologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant multidisciplinary scientific effort has been undertaken to understand the heterogeneous family of neoplasms that comprise soft tissue sarcomas. Within this family of neoplasms, outcomes for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are currently limited given a lack of effective therapies. In this review, we focus on immunotherapy and its relationship with the common RPS histologic subtypes. Although initial outcomes for RPS patients with immune checkpoint inhibition alone have been somewhat disappointing, subsequent analyses on histologies, the tumor microenvironment, sarcoma immune class, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and genetic analysis for tumor mutational burden have yielded insight into the interplay between sarcomas and immunotherapy. Such approaches have all provided critical insight into the environment and characterization of these tumors, with targets for potential immunotherapy in future clinical trials. With this insight, molecularly tailored combination treatments for improving response rates and oncologic outcomes for RPS are promising.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.246
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207